Saturday, August 03, 2024

Proposal: Fish Buildup

Timed out, 1-3. Failed by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 05 Aug 2024 05:00:38 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “Buildup”

Each Cell has a publicly tracked integer Buildup, which defaults to 0. Buildup should be tracked by adding the Buildup in parenthesis after the name of the cell in the sea chart.

Cells can be Fished or Unfished, and by default are Unfished. Cells that are Fished are publicly tracked by adding a * after their name in the sea chart, while Cells that are Unfished have no such mark.

When a Fishing Contestant performs the Collect Catches action, then as part of that action they receive a number of catches equal to that cell’s buildup (in addition to any other catches they earn from that action), the buildup of that cell is set to 0, and that cell becomes Fished

There is a publicly tracked value known as Rounds Until Buildup Is Updated which defaults to 3

Update Buildup is an atomic action with the following steps:

* Increase the Buildup of every Unfished Ocean Cell by 2
* Increase the Buildup of every Unfished Cell that does not have a Landmark and is not in the list of Disturbances by 1
* Make every cell Unfished
* Set Rounds Until Buildup Is Updated to be 3

Add the following step to the Sight Disturbances action, right after the “Any fishing contestants in that cell are moved to a legal adjacent cell in a random direction, if possible” step

Set the Buildup of that Cell to be 0

Add the following step in the second to last spot of the Sight Disturbances action

Reduce Rounds Until Buildup Is Updated by 1. If Rounds Until Buildup Is Updated is 0, perform the Update Buildup action

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

03-08-2024 03:10:27 UTC

This feels like we’re incentivizing fishing the “regular” Cells disproportionately. You can already get Catches from them, so why add more? The idea is to entice people to move around and spend Energy. Otherwise people will just circle near the Judge’s Hut.

Clucky: Puzzle Master he/him

03-08-2024 04:46:39 UTC

but that’s the thing. right now you can hang out and fish near shore and there really isn’t a huge advantage to go out to the ocean. but the buildup for the stuff near shore would be low, so you’d suddenly get more of a reason to move around to other spots on the map

SingularByte: he/him

03-08-2024 08:01:47 UTC

I think this will actually have the opposite of the intended effect. Under the current rules, the ocean is roughly twice as good as being near the shore, so if you spend energy to get there, it eventually starts being worth it as you spend more and more time there.

In contrast, under the new rules, the near-shore spaces will build up at an equal rate to the ocean so it’ll eventually just have value to just go and collect some of those rather than trekking all the way over to the ocean.

Sure, the ocean will improve just as fast as the near-shore, but as a ratio, the near-shore will look better and better.

imperial

JonathanDark: he/him

03-08-2024 17:18:39 UTC

It’s interesting but I think there are better ways to entice people to go all the way to the Ocean.  against

JonathanDark: he/him

03-08-2024 17:23:04 UTC

By the way, I’m still not opposed to changing the random Catches to flat values, or if you want to combine this Proposal idea with changing the random Catches, I’d be ok with that. Maybe remove the Fished and Unfished parts, remove the random Catches from the existing rules, and just have flat “baseline” values with Buildups every Disturbance, where the Ocean gets a higher baseline and slightly more Buildup, and the Disturbance is just a large increase in the Baseline of the Cell that it’s in.

Clucky: Puzzle Master he/him

03-08-2024 20:14:56 UTC

@SignularByte the ocean improves at double the rate of the near-shore. So a place that hasn’t been fished at in X rounds will give you ~X+3 catches near shore and ~2X+5 catches on the ocean. So actually, ration will improve (as it’ll move closer to 2, when right now its only 1.66)

Darknight: he/him

04-08-2024 00:27:50 UTC

against

Lukas:

04-08-2024 08:07:52 UTC

against on this specific implementation, but I like the idea. I will propose an alternative.